Menu

“I sense an obsession…”

So I’m haggling with an editor of mine about the word count of the two pieces I am writing for the next issue of The Economist. Writers always want more words; editors want fewer words (they’d rather run more articles).

The very oddness of proper names helps us distinguish, legally and cognitively, one person, place, or business from another. Hence all proper names (e.g., PetcareRX, Dachsie’s to Dane’s, 4 Paws Dog Grooming, Hairy D’Tails, Kathy’s K-9 Kottage, and Kute Klip Dog Spa) shall not be altered one jot or tittle.

Correct:

The name infringement lawsuit begun by The Center against The Centre reached a stunning climax yesterday.

But not:

The name infringement lawsuit begun by The Center against The Center reached a stunning climax yesterday.

Use English forms when they are in common use: Cologne, Leghorn, Lower Saxony, Lyons, Marseilles, Naples, Nuremberg, Turin. And English rather than American—Rockefeller Centre, Bar Harbour, Pearl Harbour—unless the place name is part of a company name, such as Rockefeller Center Properties Inc.

I must protest the Economist style rules. I would rather see the accepted by the society (or culture) norm preserved, especially if we are dealing with names.

In your example, Rockefeller Center should remain spelled as is, If “Center” had been “center” then there would be implied license to use a preferred spelling.

On a related note, I would follow the current accepted practice on pronunciation of proper names (and even local non-proper names). We do not Anglicize the pronunciation of the various heads of state, do we?

You assume correctly, Phil, but it doesn’t work that way. Writing words is not like, say, peeling potatoes. There is negligible marginal effort for the (professional) author, and more is not necessarily better.

As Twain famously implied when excusing himself to a friend (“I’m sorry I didn’t have time to write you a shorter letter…”), part of what we get paid for is to know so much that we can say it in fewer words than others. 😉

Now, now. You’ve been reading questionable publications, by the sounds of it.

Incidentally, I’ve been in brainstorms (and you understand that this is purely hypothetical, a thought experiment) where we thought about whether to stop carrying ads altogether (Kindle-style) and to charge readers more instead. Purist, as it were.

Moi? Reading questionable publications? Of course I have. Most of the ones I’ve read were for such things as golf or photography or surfing or some other pursuit and were, primarily, advertising media.

One of the main reasons I refused to participate in them after having endured a few. They seemed to not be intended to resolve problems but to enjoy the frustration the problems created.

Yes, the e-book concept may eventually win out with all things being “subscription”. The reason that advertising is prevalent is that it made subscription cheap enough by supplementing publication costs. I suspect that advertising will find its way into electronic publication… just as it has in the internet.